User talk:-Ril-: Difference between revisions

I have split my talk page into 3 sections. Please respect the sections as I will ignore and delete anything not respecting them. Thanks, ~~~~

This page, nor any of the subsections, is not to be used for the preservation of articles, or talk pages, about to be deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD.

User:-Ril-/BadBoy User:-Ril-/Newgate User:-Ril-/Nissa

I'm not sure you are reading this as you seem to have suggested you have put the subsection (which a blocked user cannot edit) on your watch page. In a way, I suppose that is entirely my fault for having the subsections on different pages and templating them onto the talk page.

Basically, SimonP made 4 reverts as well, indeed before me. Simon's edits involve removing sections that contain comments and votes by people other than him, as well as adjusting what it was that people had already voted for (a bit like having a VFD over King Kong's 512th Greatest Hits Album and then, after 50 people have voted delete, and 2 to keep, changing the VFD to be over Jesus, and claiming that there was an overwealming majority to delete it as fancruft).

I do not regard this as appropriate behaviour, and was merely restoring the comments, votes, and what it was that these people had signed their votes to. His edits removing their votes, comments, and changing what it was that other people signed up to, effectively constitute vandalism, albeit rather refined, and reversion of vandalism is not covered by 3RR.

He is the author of the articles that started all this, and is simply trying to sabotage any attempt to obtain consensus, simply because it will go against him.

It should be noted that since he also violated 3RR he shouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia at the moment either. ~~~~ 01:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I watchlisted User:-Ril-/Nissa (I'm not sure what it means) for some inexplicable reason, sorry about that. In answer to your question, I cannot take action against Simon P for edits which "effectively constitute vandalism, albeit rather refined," because it's too loose. If, however, you can demonstrate that there is some consensus that these edits did, in fact, consititute vandalism, then I will reconsider. As for his self-correction, and him not undergoing a block, this is in accordance to policy. I view the 3RR as a "cool down" period, and as such, I view your block as arbitrary; meaning, had he not self-corrected, he would also be blocked right now, had you self-corrected, you would not be blocked right now. It sounds procedural (that's the arbitrary apsect), but the aim is to reduce conflict from being intensified. I suggest that you gain the consensus toward your position in this case, this way you will not risk violating the 3RR. El_C 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, he has just claimed the poll is closed on the poll page because it isn't going his way. ~~~~ 01:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following edit conflict: You are, of course, more than free to contest that claim, but in fairness, it states that the poll is temporarily closed. El_C 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should be noted that when the poll closed the option I supported was leading by 19 to 4. - SimonP 02:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have divided up the page to stop a repeat of the last vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#When_delete_votes_means_to_keep. --Ttyre 17:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my opinion tommorrow, I'm marking some extensive coursework at the moment, and I need to finish by wednesday. ~~~~ 17:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your criteria in dividing this page up, so I'm posting this at the bottom of your Talk page, where it is the custom to put comments on other Talk pages.

Basically, the options are

• You want to say something nice
• You want to say something nasty
• You want to say something else

These have a section each

~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to a comment you left on my Talk page. My intent in writing did not concern whether you felt it was nice or nasty; further, you may disagree about whether my intent was to be nice or nasty. Frankly, I find it much easier to get my point across without worrying which one of these categories it should belong to; you are welcome to move this section accrodingly. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it in the "something else" category then. That's where most of the comments go (I've had to archive the old page). ~~~~ 07:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article reports a POV, which was held by Jerome, not the Wikipedian who wrote the article. Whether the POV is "correct" or "incorrect" is irrelevant; as long as it limits itself to reporting the substance of the claim, & who claims it, then I feel it is acceptible content for Wikipedia. And while it's been several months since I looked at the literature, I believe a number of scholars have also reported that this was Jerome's opinion -- so it is not a case of original research.

But the point is that Jerome's position is almost universally regarded, by academics, and non-academics (including those of extreme religious and non-religious bias, as well as the more neutral), to be wrong. Not only that, but they believe that Jerome held it only because he didn't have enough information, and that he didn't hold it as an alternative to any other theory. I.e. Jerome didn't hold it as a rival theory to what we now regard as accurate, he just held it as true because he didn't know of anything else.

It would be like having an article about "scorpions commit suicide when threatened too seriously, e.g. by fire". They don't. Ever. It's a myth (caused by scorpion's cold bloodedness going haywire under high heat, causing them to have random spasms - their poison is NOT toxic to themselves, and even if they deliberately stung themselves, it would do nothing). Note, this is not the same as an article about "it is a myth that ....".

We also have an article about Phlogiston. Applying the your criteria to that article means that it should be also listed on VfD. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But Phlogiston was a theory supported by a large number of reputable scholars. There are none supporting the content of the article. Jerome is notable, but not everything he says is notable or deserving its own article as a result, otherwise we would have an article on "Salissa is an attractive lady, but her boyfriend is a fat traitor, and that new fashion for red sandals is vile". ~~~~ 07:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew is presenting someone's unintended error due to lack of info as a genuine, and rival, theory, presenting it as fact, presenting it as if it is the same as the modern theory (it is completely different, and opposed to many of the points), by deliberately misusing terms from modern theory (see the articles themselves) - terms and theories Jerome did not use because they didn't exist until after 1800. ~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in your arguments is that it presumes intention on behalf of its original author to present Original Research, which hereafter taints this article. I believe that bad articles can be rescued, improved, & fixed; that is one of the ideals behind Wikipedia, that all articles improve. From the changes that were made this last weekend, this one looks as if it is headed in that direction; I am willing to give it some time to see if I'm right. The worst case is that it will simply require more time to build a consensus for the article's deletion.

The fact that there is no-one else involved in creating the article, that it is defended with an army of (obvious) sockpuppets, and that no-one can anywhere else find the content, illustrates that it is original research. ~~~~ 07:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I am not at all invested in the fate of this article: if the vote goes against my opinion, & it fails its VfD & is deleted, I'll likely keep on contributing to Wikipedia; the loss of one brick will not bring down this entire edifice. I wonder if you can make the same claim. -- llywrch 02:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate that I am uncomfortable with the current article name, & beleive that it should be changed. But I mentioned that in my VfD vote. And whether this article duplicates material from other articles is another matter; a number of pages begin with duplicated material, & grow into articles with independent content. But if making a merge would be the best thing to do, then this option should be argued -- not complete deletion.

FWIW, this is the first time I've ever been contacted about changing my vote concerning VfD. I find it unusual. -- llywrch 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it on lots of people's pages. I have many contacts from people about my own votes above (most of which are now archived b.t.w.). I had assumed it was standard practice. ~~~~ 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Ril- please (and this is not an attempt to gag - but a plea) stop making sockpuppet allegations on Authentic Matthew. I thought you had agreed to leave that to User:Ta bu shi da yu. Personaly, I think your allegations are probably justified, but if this becomes a debate between you and opposing forces of darkness, I fear that the article will survive. I think they are probably trolling for your reaction anyway. --Doc (?) 22:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have 3 edits between them, all to the VFD, all as if they have met me, the dispute, and the article, before. I'd have thought they were obviously sockpuppets. I want them blocked so that the accounts that own them are revealed as well. ~~~~ 23:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but I suggest you point it out to User:Ta bu shi da yu - if named as socks by a neutral person, it will carry more weight - and your prior comments will be vindicated. --Doc (?) 23:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did that before I even responded to you. ~~~~ 23:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. After further consideration, I have decided to stand by my original vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that, in light of the RfC against Germen, I have raised an request for arbitration for him. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril, I find your signature confusing, as do at least some others. Would you be willing to consider changing it? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) No. Thanks anyway. ~~~~ 21:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find your sig to be difficult too. The problem is when refering to you. if someone types ~~~~ then what appears is their sig and datestamp, Which is annoying to say the least.

Suggestions for possible alternatives:

• ~~-~
• ~Ril~
• ~~^ril~~
• ~~^tilde~
• ~~_´`´ ~

I'm sure you could think of others too. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't rely on who people claim to be and who they actually are. Signatures are easy to forge. I never copy someone's signature, but actually go to their userpage and check to see who they genuinely are. -- Theresa knott (a tenth stroke) 22:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to refer to me, you can always click edit, and copy + paste my signature. Or you can use <nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki> ~~~~ 22:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(that looks like <nowiki><</nowiki>nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki>~~<nowiki><</nowiki>/nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki><nowiki><</nowiki>nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki>~~<nowiki><</nowiki>/nowiki<nowiki>></nowiki> in the edit window, which obviously looks even worse) ~~~~ 22:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a bit annoyed that [[User:~~~~]] already exists, otherwise I'd have had that. Linking to it, and to its diffs, is amusing.

Maybe I should sign <nowiki> instead ? ~~~~ 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be even worse. If someone copied your sig rasther than copied and pasted it it would nowiki all further edits. The point I am trying to make is you should choose a sig that people can simply write when they want to refer to you. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, why does no-one complain about User:Eequor? ~~~~ 22:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because Eequor's signature doesn't fuck things up if you type it rather than copy and paste it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can no-more type Eequor's signature than mine. ~~~~ 23:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily type your signature. But if I do it fucks up. Eequor's signsture is difficult (but not impossible) to type, and if I do, it doesn't fuck up. So there is a big difference. I'm not saying Eequor's sig is good or clever. In fact I think it's rubbish, but it is less annoying or problematic than yours. A while back I used a graphic as a sig that morphed my name into an anagram. People complained about it and came up with a number of reasons why it wasn't a good idea. So I changed it. No big deal. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this is simply signature fascism, a subtle form of racism. I'm keeping it. ~~~~ 07:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racism? You are talking bollocks. How can asking someone to change their sig to something a little less difficult possibly be a form of racism, subtle or otherwise? I have no idea what race you are. If you insist on keeping your crappy sig then so be it, but people will think badly of you for it. You are obviosly fine with people thinking badly of you over something so trivial. So be it. I'm outta here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then i would sugest that pople not take ril seriously till he stops not aking everyone else seriously. Gabrielsimon 07:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that people violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith is inappropriate behaviour. So is trolling someone else's talk page when you don't have anything direct to say. ~~~~ 08:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its obvious your not taking any of this seriously, and if you dont take this place seriouisly, what would give you the inkling to expect anyone to tak tyou seriously in that case? ( not trying to be rude, trying to illustrate my point) Gabrielsimon 08:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you cease trolling. You are 1 vote away from an arbitration case against you. ~~~~ 08:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

calm down for a monment and think about what i said from a perspective not your own, youll seee what im trying to say, im not attempting to " trol" Gabrielsimon 08:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Trolling is what you are doing on this talk page. You have no reason to have come here, but have chosen to do so merely to carry out an attack. That is trolling. You are now banned from this talk page for the next week. If you edit it, your edits will be reverted by me on sight. ~~~~ 09:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -Ril-, Noitall is getting the impression that you're following his edits and reverting them inappropriately, perhaps because of bad feeling between you. I've checked out a few of the edits, and it does look as though there's a problem. Is there anything I can do to help out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can persuade him that his edits on Islam-related issues are not NPOV, and that images such as Image:G-string-micro.gif are not speedy deletable, despite their pornographic nature (otherwise the erection picture at Penis wouldn't exist), and should be IFD'd instead. ~~~~ 07:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as the problem with his Islam-related edits, and can you give some examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• [1] - note the top, and the edit summary
• [2]
• [3] more of the same, this time posting to an article, thus constituting a personal attack
• [4] - note also the edit summary
• [5]
• [6] - totally POV edit
• [7] and [8] unfactual POV
• [9] - note edit summary
• [10] POV - whole point of NOT mentioning that in the article was because many christian sects disagree, and it is discussed at christology
• [11] POV - note edit summary
• [12] seriously offensive personal attack on a well respected editor
• [13] edits to assert a POV without actually checking validity - later partially reverts her/himself

Further, his edit history is filled almost 100% with edit wars, including edits actually encouraging (explicitely) people to engage in edit wars. This is not constructive behaviour. ~~~~ 20:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, he did not address the issue of his behavior on this page or on my talk page. Apparently, he thinks that revenge and personal attacks are appropriate for him to take if he dislikes things an editor has done or said with someone else (which I would dispute in any event). Despite his personal attacks, which have no justification even though he attempts to justify them above, and although I have refrained (as much as I possibly can) from taking any actions against him, I continue to try to resolve this issue (if it can be resolved). That is the entire reason that I requested SlimVirgin to see what can be done to resolve the issue.

-Ril- still failed to address the issues I before asked of him (this was about the 5th or 6th attempt), , which are:

1. your reactionary reverts are done for revenge
2. your attacks against me in the past where you attempted to certify an RfC and tried to revert a deleted RfC without any justification, followed by your continuing reactionary reverts on this article without any justification.
3. after being provided a source concerning the making of a non-controvercial edit, much of which was not written by me, you refuse to consider the source
4. continuing to make POV charges without once stating what is POV
5. continuing to make POV charges without once providing a rationale as to why it is POV
6. continuing to make POV charges despite the fact that many other editors contributed to drafting this passage
7. each and every edit has been a reactionary revert without a single attempt to state the supposedly POV issue or suggest a way of changing my edit such that it would be supposedly less POV

Try to address the issues to be resolved, not how you can justify your continuing personal attacks. --Noitall 00:25, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, perhaps you could try to avoid the appearance of revenge reverts of Noitall's edits. While content disputes are valid, reverting an editor's work because you don't like him is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. No purpose is served by creating more bad feeling. It will only end up causing more RfCs and possibly an arbcom case, and it's definitely not worth it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ril, are you putting the other ones up for VfD again as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put them up in the first place, someone beat me to it. So I don't feel it would be right for me to open those up again when whoever it was that did it should have the (somewhat dubious) honour. ~~~~ 19:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril you are being attacked - there is a User:--Ril-- spaming 'authentic matthew with porn. --Doc (?) 21:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for the heads-up, Doc! FreplySpang (talk) 22:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)